Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Study - Climate Change Deniers More Likely to Believe In Crazy Conspiracies


  • Please log in to reply
66 replies to this topic

#61 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,609 posts

Posted 23 February 2013 - 10:29 AM

weird. my actual college textbooks on the subject tended to lend plenty of credence to the skeptical point of view. So much more than the journalists and politicians of today.

Must've been them biased jesus-riding-velociraptor texas textbooks I've been hearing so much about.


When were your text books printed? (or when did you go to school)

I ask because my environmental science text books from the early 2000s presented "skeptics" arguments, but they also provided data that countered them - and since then the case for global warming has only gotten stronger.

#62 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,609 posts

Posted 23 February 2013 - 10:39 AM

this is kind of easy. are there not people who are capiltalizing on climate change and pocketing large sums of money and have no real motive to find any solutions? if you don't think so please kindly stop operating heavy machinery.


sure there likely are, but they are very likely in the minority compared to people doing actual research. it is hard to know what exactly is meant by a statement like this because it does nothing but discredit large groups of people without any targetting at all. you clearly seem to distrust scientists, but I don't exactly think it is clear why or in what way given that the rest of your posts imply you actually do think anthropogenic climate change is real and could be a major problem. I kind of think you just argue to argue sometimes, which I think a lot of us are guilty of.

i take issue with statements like yours, because of people like twylyght who say what we really need is to have unbias people looking into this not influenced by government grant money... yeah, okay. even putting aside the fact statements like that imply that literally hundreds of thousands of scientists are all bias, you can't do research for free. so who exactly will fund the research? do you think that a private corporation, maybe an oil company, is less or more likely to inspire bias in research?

I have no doubt there are people trying to exploit the situation to make money. That's the nature of the economy and society we live in. However, to simply throw up our arms and say, "We just don't have the data, we don't know anything, and nobody is actually looking at this objectively" is just not wise (and not something it appears you are doing, Pstall). Research is continuing, and will continue, but that doesn't mean that we can't look at what we know and see if there are some good solutions to tackle the problem.

re: hypothesis testing, that most certainly goes on in climate science. not sure where the idea that it didn't comes from. we might not be able to test every hypothesis in the most straight forward manner, because of dealing with a climate, but still. testing is going on.

#63 pstall

pstall

    Gazebo Effect

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,419 posts
  • LocationMontford

Posted 23 February 2013 - 11:23 AM

Its not a matter of trust of scientists or the research going on. That's why I shared the link from freakonomics. I look at the way they do. I don't automatically buy all the data that's been presented but more so I don't buy the potential solutions. Some but not all.
This really is about being cautious and doing more and more homework and not running with the first thing we here.
Scientists like other professions can be wrong even after much time and money has been spent.
Not once have I said nothing is wrong and we shouldn't do anything.

#64 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,609 posts

Posted 23 February 2013 - 02:35 PM

I agree you haven't but I think that it is dangerous to do nothing.

It is difficult to have a realistic dialogue about what to do when you have so many people who flat out refuse to acknowledge anything is wrong in the first place I think.

#65 pstall

pstall

    Gazebo Effect

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,419 posts
  • LocationMontford

Posted 23 February 2013 - 05:41 PM

i'm not proposing doing nothing. that would be insane. the other trap is to just do whatever and it not be smart and jack stuff up even more.

#66 Jase

Jase

    Kuechold Fantasies

  • Administrators
  • 17,332 posts
  • LocationMatthews, NC

Posted 23 February 2013 - 08:00 PM

When were your text books printed? (or when did you go to school)

I ask because my environmental science text books from the early 2000s presented "skeptics" arguments, but they also provided data that countered them - and since then the case for global warming has only gotten stronger.


2002-2006

then again for a class in 2011


In that time span I took classes all from an engineering perspective, a general science perspective, and also even a history class perspective. All casted plenty of doubt and I have seen nothing to indicate that the debate is over despite the prevailing rhetoric.

I've also kept up with the climateaudit.org posts over the years and reading through that stuff gives plenty of food for thought. (The realclimate peeps hate this guy, though)

#67 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,609 posts

Posted 24 February 2013 - 09:00 PM

What are you defining as "the debate", exactly?

It is pretty much settled that the climate is changing, and that humans are having some sort of impact; the extent of either of those, though, is still very much under some heavy research.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com